1. Lecture Outline nModerators of Schema Usage-Continued nThe Self nFunctions of the Self nSelf-Guides nSelf-Guides and Memory nSelf-Guides and Others nRole Models nSelf-Regulation

2. Midterm nNo Class March 6th (study instead) nMidterm: 75 multiple choice questions l 1/3 from book l 2/3 from lecture n1 short answer (from book and lecture)

3. Midterm: Example Questions Kelley’s covariation model states that perceivers use information form three dimensions when making attributions for another’s behavior. These dimensions are: a. instinctiveness, consensus, consistency b. stability, distinctiveness, consensus c. inconsistency, consensus, distinctiveness d. uniqueness, inconsistency, consensus e. consensus, distinctiveness, consistency f. none of the above e

4. Which of the following explains why the probab- ilistic view of schemas allows for the possibility that schema members may vary in typicality. a) there are necessary, but not sufficient features needed for an instance to be categorized as a schema member b) schema members share a family resemblance c) an instance must have a minimum number of features in common with schema members to be categorized as a schema member d) there are necessary and sufficient features needed for an instance to be categorized as a schema member e) a and c f) none of the above b

5. Morning Types: l Reach functional peak early in day Evening Types: l Reach function peak late in day Moderators of Schema Usage Circadian Cycles of Arousal

6. Predictions Morning Types l high attention early in day l low attention late in day nEvening Types: l low attention early in day l high attention late in day Bodenhausen (1990) Stereotyping low Stereotyping high Stereotyping low

7. Procedures: nRead about misconduct on campus nMisconduct = assaulted roommate nRead mixed evidence nRated suspect’s guilt Manipulations: nSuspect = Hispanic or White nRatings made early or late in day Bodenhausen (1990)

8. Who should stereotype more late in the day? Morning Types.57 1.06

9. Who should stereotype more early in the day? Evening Types 1.74.47

10. Prediction: nTime pressure increases stereotyping ? Kruglanski & Freund (1983) According to Continuum Model Why should Time Pressure have this effect Because time pressure reduces perceivers’ attention to target

11. Procedures: nParticipants read essay by 8th grader nGrade the essay In reality, essay written by a teacher Kruglanski & Freund (1983)

12. Manipulations 1. 8th grader’s ethnicity l Ashkenasi Jew (stereotyped as smarter) l Sepharadi Jew (stereotyped as dumber) 2. Time Pressure l unlimited time to read essay l limited time to read essay Kruglanski & Freund (1983)

13. Results 8.85 % 16.35 %

14. We know what it is…. People use the term all the time…. But how is it defined?…. The Self

15. nPhysical self: one’s body nSocial identity: one’s self-schema —social roles (I am a mother) —traits (I am a hard worker) —future hopes/goals (I want to move away) —past memories (I went to the beach in 1987) nActive agent: one’s thoughts and actions —decisions —behavior Three Components of the Self

16. nInterpersonal tool nDecision Maker nSelf-Regulation Functions of the Self

17. nThe actual self nThe ideal self nThe ought self Self-Guides What you are What you want to be What you should be

18. Your ideal self can be similar to your ought self e.g., you want to be a good student (ideal) and believe that you should be a good student (ought) Ideal vs.. Ought

19. Your ideal self can be discrepant from your ought self e.g., you want to be in a rock band (ideal), but believe that you should be a doctor (ought) Ideal vs. Ought

20. Premise: People evaluate themselves by comparing….. actual self to ideal self actual self to ought self A discrepancy causes people to experience negative emotions Self-Discrepancy Theory Higgins (1987)

21. The kind of negative emotions elicited by a discrepancy depends on one’s goals Promotional goals: nstriving for positive outcomes Self-Discrepancy Theory I want to have a happy marriage I want to have a successful career

22. Preventative goals: nstriving to avoid negative outcomes Self-Discrepancy Theory I don’t want to get divorced I don’t want to get a bad grade on the test

23. Failure to attain promotional goals : l mismatch between actual and ideal l experience sadness and dejection Failure to attain preventative goals : l mismatch between actual and ought l experience anxiety and agitation Self-Discrepancy Theory

24. Predictions: 1. Actual--Ideal discrepancy = sadness 2. Actual--Ought discrepancy = agitation Higgins et al. (1986)

25. Step 1 Purpose: Identify participants with l Large Actual--Ideal discrepancies l Large Actual--Ought discrepancies Higgins et al. (1986)

26. Step 1 Procedure: 1. Participants listed attributes associated with their actual, ideal, and ought selves 2. Judges compared the lists and identified the kind of discrepancies each had Higgins et al. (1986)

27. Step 2 Purpose: Test prediction l A-I discrepancy = sadness l A-O discrepancy = agitation Procedure: nimagined an event nrated self in terms of sadness and agitation Higgins et al. (1986)

28. Manipulation: Valence of imagined event nNegative event (e.g., rejected) nPositive event (e.g., spent time with admired other) Higgins et al. (1986)

29. Results Positive Event: Type of discrepancy did not matter Negative Event: Type of discrepancy mattered: l A-I discrepancy = more sadness l A-O discrepancy = more agitation

30. Unanswered Questions nDoes the size of the discrepancy influence how bad someone feels? nDoes the discrepancy have to be accessible (i.e., activated) to influence negative emotions?

31. Higgins et al. (1997) Hypothesis: Larger discrepancy = more negative emotion…. BUT… only when discrepancy is accessible

32. Higgins et al. (1997) Step 1: Assessed SIZE of discrepancy nParticipants generated 3-5 attributes for: —ideal self —ought self nRated extent to which they: —actually had each attribute —wanted to have each attribute —ought to have each attribute

33. Higgins et al. (1997) Step 2: Assessed ACCESSIBILITY of discrepancy nTime it took participants to respond to previous questions Faster = discrepancy more accessible

34. Higgins et al. (1997) Step 3: nParticipants rated how sad and agitated they felt

35. Higgins et al. (1997) Step 4: nResearchers divided participants into two groups based on reaction time task: 1) Discrepancy highly accessible kparticipants who made fast ratings 2) Discrepancy not highly accessible kparticipants who made slow ratings

36. Higgins et al. (1997) Analysis Correlated size of discrepancy with: —reported level of sadness —reported level of agitation

37. Higgins et al. (1997) Recap of Hypothesis Larger discrepancy = more negative emotion…. BUT… only when discrepancy is accessible So, who should feel the worst?

38. Higgins et al. (1997) Answer Participants who have large discrepancies that are also highly accessible

39. Results Correlations between size of discrepancy and negative emotion

40. Previous studies: nAccessibility of discrepancy assessed, not manipulated. Question: nWould same result occur if accessibility of discrepancy was manipulated?

41. Yes. Manipulating accessibility via a reminder also produces……. nMore sadness for Actual-Ideal discrepancies nMore agitation for Actual-Ought discrepancies

42. Self-Guides and Memory Previous studies: nThe kind of discrepancy one feels affects the negative emotions one experiences Question: nDoes the discrepancy one feels also affect one’s memory for events?

43. Higgins & Tykocinski (1992) Hypothesis: Memory depends on the kind of discrepancy one experiences l Actual--Ideal discrepancy = Better memory for attainment of desired outcomes (i.e., promotional goals) l Actual--Ought discrepancy = Better memory for attainment of avoided misfortune (i.e., preventative goals) Question: nDoes the discrepancy one feels influence judgments of others, such as memory?

44. Higgins & Tykocinski (1992) Step 1: Identified participants with A-I and A-O discrepancies Step 2: Participants read essay about another in which 20 events occurred. n8 events = positive outcome present or absent n8 events = negative outcome present or absent n4 events = neutral fillers

45. Example Events Positive Outcome nPresent: found $20 nAbsent: movie wanted to see no longer showing Negative Outcome nPresent: stuck in subway nAbsent: skipped unpleasant day at school Step 3: Surprise memory test for essay’s content

46. A-I remembered more positive events than A-O A-O remembered more negative events than A-I

47. Sometimes others outperform us Example: l Your friend does better on the midterm than you l Your co-worker gets promoted, but you don’t Self-Guides and Others

48. When this happens, do you feel…. GOOD BAD

49. Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model According to the SEM, the answer depends on the domain’s self-relevance Premise of SEM: Being outperformed by a “close other” will make you feel: l GOOD, if you don’t care about the domain l BAD, if you do care about the domain

50. Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model Close other = person similar to yourself Examples: nsame status nsimilar personality nfamily members nshared place of origin

51. Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model Summary of SEM Premise: nBeing outperformed by close other on self-irrelevant domain makes one feel good nBeing outperformed by close other on self-relevant domain makes one feel bad

52. Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model Assumptions of SEM Premise: nPeople want to maintain a positive self- view nBeing outperformed by a close other threatens one’s positive self-view nPeople try to reduce threats to their self-worth

53. Ways to reduce the threat others pose to your self-worth Reduce your closeness to the other The more distant you are to those who outperform you, the less threat their accomplishments pose to your self-worth

54. Ways to reduce the threat others pose to your self-worth Reduce self-relevance of the domain The less you care about the domains on which you are outperformed, the less threatening your poor performance is to your self-worth

55. Ways to reduce the threat others pose to your self-worth Minimize others’ accomplishment Explaining away other people’s accomplishments makes their good performance less threatening to your self-worth

56. Ways to reduce the threat others pose to your self-worth Undermine others’ future performance Reducing the likelihood that others will perform highly in the future protects your own self-worth

57. Purpose: Show that others will undermine the performance of a friend to protect own self-worth Tesser & Cornell (1991)

58. Procedure: Step 1: Two sets male friends at session Step 2: Each participant sat alone in room Step 3: Each completed verbal task l IQ test (high self-relevance) l Game (low self-relevance) Tesser & Cornell (1991)

59. Procedure: Step 4: Each told they had come out 3rd —friend and one stranger did better Step 5: Perform 2nd task for which they will give clues to others Tesser & Cornell (1991)

60. Some clues more helpful than others Important Question Will participants give more helpful clues to their friend, or to the strangers? Tesser & Cornell (1991)

61. Low self-relevant group (Game) l gave more helpful clues to friend Why? High self-relevant group (IQ test) l gave more helpful clues to strangers Why? Results Domain not self-relevant Domain is self-relevant, and friend is close other

62. Limitation of SEM Being outperformed by close other does not always make people feel bad l Role models are close others, and their good performance can inspire people

63. Attainability may be key Role models achieve success in domains that are still attainable for oneself Role Models

64. Purpose: Test if “attainability” influences one’s emotional reaction to being outperformed Lockwood & Kunda (1989)

65. Prediction: A close other’s accomplishment will make one feel: l good when accomplishment is still attainable by self l bad when accomplishment is no longer attainable by self Lockwood & Kunda (1989)

66. Experimental Groups: Step 1: 1st year and 4th year students read story about star student described as: k4th year accounting student kaward for academic excellence kactive in sports and community service Step 2: rated self on adjectives related to career success (bright, skillful) Lockwood & Kunda (1989)

67. Control Group: Step 1: 1st year and 4th year students rated self on adjectives related to career success DID NOT READ STORY Lockwood & Kunda (1989)

68. Results 8.90 8.19 7.88 8.29 Perceived career success

69. Free Responses of those who read story 1st years n82% were inspired 4th years nonly 6% were inspired n50% reduced closeness to star student Conclusion: Whether a close other’s performance makes you feel good or bad about yourself may depend on how attainable the accomplishment seems for you

70. Definition: The managing of oneself l personal care l behaviors l choices l interpersonal relationships l work activities The way that people manage themselves depends on their motives Self-Regulation

71. Self-enhancement theory Premise: People are motivated to think well of themselves Function: Raise one’s self-worth People engage in self-regulatory behaviors that cause them and others to view them favorably

72. Ways to Self-Enhance nMake others view you favorably l conform to situational norms l flatter other people nMake yourself view you favorably l self-serving attributions l reduce cognitive dissonance l downward social comparison

73. Self-consistency theory Premise: People are motivated to confirm their pre-existing self-views (to self-verify) Function: nward off failure nconsistency is comforting People engage in self-regulatory behaviors that cause others to view them as they view themselves

74. Self-enhancement v.s. Self-consistency Imagine that you want to test whether people typically self-enhance or self-verify Would you examine people’s self-regulation for positive or negative attributes? Why?

75. Self-enhancement v.s. Self-consistency Answer: examine people’s self-regulation for negative attributes Why? Because the theories generate the same prediction for positive attributes, but different predictions for negative attributes Specifically………………...

76. Self-enhancement theory nSeek positive information about positive attributes to maintain positive self- view Self-consistency theory nSeek positive information about positive attributes to maintain consistency Cannot distinguish between the two theories on positive attributes

77. Self-enhancement theory nSeek positive information about negative attributes to raise one’s self-view Self-consistency theory nSeek negative information about negative attributes to maintain consistency Can distinguish between the two theories on negative attributes

78. Swann & Read (1981) Purpose: pitted self-enhancement theory against self-consistency theory

79. Swann & Read (1981) Procedure Step 1: Personality inventory: (dis)agreeableness Step 2: Beliefs on controversial topics Step 3: “True” purpose of study divulged Step 4: Beliefs on controversial topics given to partner

80. Swann & Read (1981) Procedure Step 5: Participant given four forms n1 from partner n3 from previous participants Each form had one attribute circled: AgreeableorDisagreeable

81. Swann & Read (1981) Procedure: Instructed to: npick one evaluation ndetermine whether it was partner’s evaluation of self Made determination by examining additional statements

82. Swann & Read (1981) Dependent Variable: Time spent viewing additional statements

83. Swann & Read (1981) Predictions nSelf-consistency: Spend more time viewing form that matched own self-view nSelf-enhancement: Spend more time viewing form where “agreeable” was circled, regardless of own self-view

84. Results

85. Conclusion: Participants acted in manner consistent with self-consistency theory. nSpent more time reading statements that matched own self-view

86. When do people self-enhance? nFew objective standards for evaluation When do people self-verify? nClear self-view And, sometimes people don’t do either. Accuracy motives: when people have unclear self-views